Saturday, July 15, 2023

US gives roughly double what EU provides Ukraine in military aid, renewing debate over NATO - Kenan Grier

 

by Kenan Grier

Several House Republicans are pushing to cut Ukrainian aid in the upcoming defense spending bill.

 

The United States has given roughly twice as much military aid to Ukraine during the first year of Russia's invasion as European Union countries, a disparity that has renewed debate among U.S. lawmakers.

The U.S. gave $47 billion in the first year, according Kiel Institute for the World Economy data reviewed by The New York Times

U.S. military assistance for Ukraine has been a domestic concern since Russia invaded the country in February 2022 and continues to be – as the war passes its 500-day mark and Congress attempts to pass the National Defense Authorization Act. 

On Thursday night, GOP Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene, among the House Republican Conference's most conservative members, tried unsuccessfully to get an amendment into the bill cutting roughly $300 million in new funding for Ukraine. 

“Congress should not authorize another penny for Ukraine and push the Biden administration to pursue peace,” the Georgia lawmaker said before the vote. “Ukraine is not the 51st state of the United States of America.”

Twenty-nine of the 31 North Atlantic Treaty Organization members are European countries. 

NATO formed after World War II and essentially serves to safeguard its members and allies through military and political means.

Most countries in the European Union have yet to reach NATO’s target for them to spend 2% of their Gross Domestic Product on defense, according to Politico.

The United States, Greece, Lithuania, Poland, the United Kingdom, Estonia and Latvia were the only countries that met the requirement in 2022.

The U.S. had the second highest GDP percentage for defense spending in 2022, at 3.46%. And The GDP percentage for the U.S. has held over 3% for the past eight years.

Former President Donald Trump has for years been critical of the United States' NATO involvement, pointing to how much money the county has contributing to defense compared to the European countries.

"NATO has not treated us fairly," Trump said while in the White House. "We pay far too much and they pay far too little."

He also criticized Germany specifically for failing to meet NATO’s spending goal, telling then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a 2018 summit: “Angela, you need to do something about this."

The United States GDP percentage decreased slightly during Trump’s presidency to an average of roughly 3.4%. The percentage increased to an average of over 3.5% from 2020 to 2022.

The possibility of Trump winning reelection in 2024 has caused uncertainty about the United States' continuing commitment to NATO and Ukraine.

Still, President Biden has continued to voice his support for both and shows no indication of cutting funding.

"I'm saying as sure as anything could possibly be said about American foreign policy, we will stay connected to NATO," Biden said during his visit to Finland on Thursday, according to Reuters.

He also said: "We will continue support to Ukraine, which is defending not only herself but also all the values we represent in the Western world" and “We will not waver. Our commitment to Ukraine will not weaken.”


Kenan Grier

Source: https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/us-leads-nato-ukraine-aid-house-republicans-look-cut

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden Administration Funding Iran's Nuclear Bomb Tests, Threatening Israel for Trying to Prevent Them? - Majid Rafizadeh

 

by Majid Rafizadeh

Iran's aggression threatens not only its own brutalized citizens – Iran has executed more than 200 people in just the first half of this year and deliberately poisoned more than 1200 schoolgirls -- but also the entire region, Europe and the United States.

 

  • Secret attempts by the Biden Administration to reach an interim deal with the mullahs threaten not only to add an estimated $100 billion into the treasury of the Iranian regime's struggling economy, but, worse, catapult an Iranian nuclear menace onto the world.

  • Iran's aggression threatens not only its own brutalized citizens – Iran has executed more than 200 people in just the first half of this year and deliberately poisoned more than 1200 schoolgirls -- but also the entire region, Europe and the United States.

  • Reports also indicate that the Iranian regime's illegal nuclear activities have escalated in 2023 under the Biden Administration's watch.

  • In spite of these factors and the strong opposition from the Congress -- including a warning from U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul that according to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, any agreement, even an informal one, with Iran about its nuclear weapons program, must be approved by Congress and no funds released until after 60 says -- the Biden Administration has been holding​ ​secret talks in Oman...

  • Along with this Iranian plan to join the "nuclear club," abetted by the Biden Administration, this same Biden Administration, in the face of Iran's openly stated commitment to Israel's destruction is, according to one report, now pressuring Israel to "commit suicide" or risk losing American support.

  • The dangerous legacy the Biden Administration appears to want to leave includes threats to the only democracy in the Middle East while capitulating to the world's most vicious dictators in Afghanistan, China, Venezuela and Iran -- which the US State Department has called the "top state sponsor of terrorism" -- and soon, thanks to the Biden Administration, armed with nuclear bombs.

Secret attempts by the Biden Administration to reach an interim deal with the mullahs threaten not only to add an estimated $100 billion into the treasury of the Iranian regime's struggling economy, but, worse, catapult an Iranian nuclear menace onto the world. (Image source: iStock)

Thanks to the Biden Administration's appeasement of the Iranian regime, the mullahs have apparently become more emboldened than ever to test their nuclear bomb. Secret attempts by the Administration to reach an interim deal with the mullahs threaten not only to add an estimated $100 billion into the treasury of the Iranian regime's struggling economy, but, worse, catapult an Iranian nuclear menace onto the world.

Iran's aggression threatens not only its own brutalized citizens – Iran has executed more than 200 people in just the first half of this year and deliberately poisoned more than 1200 schoolgirls -- but also the entire region, Europe and the United States.

New European intelligence reports recently disclosed that the Islamic Republic of Iran has sought to skirt sanctions imposed by the European Union and the United States in order to accelerate testing an atom bomb.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) published the intelligence documents with translations. According to Ayelet Savyon, director of MEMRI's Iran Media Project:

"The reality is that Iran has not in any way backed off from its efforts to build nuclear weapons, has taken every opportunity to advance its technological capabilities to this end and has for years misled the international community and lied about its intentions while at the same time widely publicizing its goal to legitimately attain nuclear-threshold status and continues doing so to this day."

Reports also indicate that the Iranian regime's illegal nuclear activities have escalated in 2023 under the Biden Administration's watch. According to the 2022 report of the Netherlands General and Intelligence Security Service:

"Last year, Iran proceeded with its nuclear program. The country continues to increase stocks of 20% and 60% enriched uranium. By means of centrifuges, this can be used for further enrichment to the 90% enriched uranium needed for a nuclear weapon. Iran is further ignoring the agreements that were made within the framework of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). And by deploying increasingly more sophisticated uranium enrichment centrifuges it is enlarging its enrichment capacity."

In addition, the Swedish Security Service noted in its annual report for 2023:

"Iran engages in industrial espionage, which is mainly aimed at the Swedish high-tech industry and Swedish products that can be used in nuclear weapons program."

Adam Samara, a spokesperson for the Swedish Security Service, told Fox News Digital:

"The Swedish Security Service can confirm that Iran are conducting security-threatening activities in Sweden and against Swedish interests...

"Examples of these activities are industrial espionage targeting Swedish high-tech industries and unlawful intelligence gathering targeting Swedish higher education institutions. Iran seeks Swedish technology and knowledge that can be used in their nuclear weapons program.

"The Swedish Security Service has an ongoing collaboration with our international partners, but we do not however go into details concerning that collaboration."

In spite of these factors and the strong opposition from the Congress -- including a warning from U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul that according to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, any agreement, even an informal one, with Iran about its nuclear weapons program, must be approved by Congress and no funds released until after 60 says -- the Biden Administration has been holding​ ​secret talks in Oman to reward the Iranian regime with a nuclear deal that will pave the way for it legally to obtain as many nuclear weapons as it likes, empower the ruling mullahs with billions of dollars, lift sanctions, allow it to rejoin the global financial system and enhance the theocratic regime's legitimacy on the global stage.

The Biden Administration also reportedly wants immediately to pump $17 billion into the Iranian regime's treasury -- "for humanitarian purposes" -- as if the administration has no idea that money is fungible and will obviously free up previously allocated "humanitarian funds" for nuclear and terrorist work. These benefits will not only enable Iran to complete its nuclear weapons program, but also to send more arms to Russia to attack Ukraine, as well as to enable the regime's ongoing expansion even further over the Middle East -- in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and the terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip -- as well as throughout Latin America.

Ever since the Biden Administration assumed office, Iran's ruling mullahs have been rapidly advancing their uranium enrichment to levels just below the those needed for a nuclear bomb, and reports state that they may be planning to test one. In March 2023, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl told the House Armed Services Committee that Iran's nuclear program had made "remarkable" progress.

At present, according to Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, Iran reportedly has enough enriched uranium to produce five nuclear bombs. "Make no mistake," Gallant told his Greek counterpart Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos during a visit to Athens on May 4, 2023, "Iran will not be satisfied by a single nuclear bomb. So far, Iran has gained material enriched to 20% and 60% for five nuclear bombs... Iranian progress, and enrichment to 90%, would be a grave mistake on Iran's part, and could ignite the region."

Along with this Iranian plan to join the "nuclear club," abetted by the Biden Administration, this same Biden Administration, in the face of Iran's openly stated commitment to Israel's destruction is, according to one report, now pressuring Israel to "commit suicide" or risk losing American support.

The dangerous legacy the Biden Administration appears to want to leave includes threats to the only democracy in the Middle East while capitulating to the world's most vicious dictators in Afghanistan, China, Venezuela and Iran -- which the US State Department has called the "top state sponsor of terrorism" -- and soon, thanks to the Biden Administration, armed with nuclear bombs.

 

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US Foreign Policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19803/biden-funding-iran-nuclear-bomb

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Why the US-Israel alliance endures - opinion - Avi Mayer

 

by Avi Mayer

The US and Israel have common values and common interests with many other fellow democracies. This relationship seems to go much deeper.

 

JERUSALEM SCHOOLCHILDREN hold Israeli and American flags during a rehearsal for former US President Barack Obama’s visit to Israel in 2013. (photo credit: BAZ RATNER/REUTERS)
JERUSALEM SCHOOLCHILDREN hold Israeli and American flags during a rehearsal for former US President Barack Obama’s visit to Israel in 2013.
(photo credit: BAZ RATNER/REUTERS)

I am writing these words while flying back to Israel from a brief visit to Washington, DC. It is oppressively hot and unbearably humid in DC at this time of year, but as I strolled through Capitol Hill earlier this week, the white sandstone of the US Capitol glistened against picture-perfect blue skies and the National Mall was a beautifully verdant green. It was the stuff of postcards and I walked around with the West Wing theme music playing in my head.

I spent several days meeting with congressional leaders, both Democrats and Republicans, and administration officials, as well as with groups that study and seek to shape US policy vis-à-vis Israel. Having spent quite a few years living, studying, and working in and around Washington, I am familiar with the way in which Israel has traditionally been discussed in the city. But as an observer of US politics and of the US-Israel relationship in recent years, I had braced myself for ominous talk of a growing partisan divide over Israel, of increased skepticism over defense aid and other forms of support for the Jewish state, of extremists hijacking the conversation and driving policy in troubling directions.

Surprisingly, and happily, that’s not what I heard. While there was general acknowledgement that there are voices on the margins of both parties trying to tug the US away from Israel, virtually all of my interlocutors on both sides of the aisle emphasized that those voices remain firmly on the margins and that Israel remains an area of broad bipartisan agreement – one of very few in America today.

Even when pushed on differences between the sitting American and Israeli governments, the impact of the judicial reform legislation and the ongoing protests surrounding it, differing approaches to the Iranian nuclear issue, and other areas of current or potential friction, they stood firm: the state of the US-Israel relationship remains strong, they said, and it is only going from strength to strength.

I heard excitement about making America more accessible to Israelis by incorporating Israel into the US visa waiver program, hope of expanding the Abraham Accords to encompass additional countries in the region, anticipation of closer cooperation between the American and Israeli tech sectors on areas ranging from artificial intelligence to renewable energy, and confidence that the US and Israel will work together to counter the threat posed by Iran and its terrorist proxies.

IS IT A dispute between friends or a serious disagreement?  (credit: RONEN ZVULUN/REUTERS) IS IT A dispute between friends or a serious disagreement? (credit: RONEN ZVULUN/REUTERS)

Contrary to what certain pundits might say, never once did any of my interlocutors indicate that America is anywhere near “reassessing” its ties with Israel. Much to the contrary: they suggested that the best days of the relationship between the two countries are still ahead of us.

As I went from one meeting to the next, I found myself pondering the source of the US-Israel alliance’s durability. Yes, we share common values and common interests, as our national leaders remind us at every opportunity. But the US and Israel have common values and common interests with many other fellow democracies. This relationship seems to go much deeper.

I thought back to last week, when I joined more than 2,000 of my closest friends in celebrating America’s 247th Independence Day at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. While pretty much every embassy in Israel hosts a reception for its national day, no event is larger and no ticket hotter than the US embassy’s Fourth of July extravaganza. As we slid around on the gravel of the museum’s sculpture garden, happily sipping sweet Jack Daniel’s cocktails and munching on kosher McDonald’s Big Macs, it felt, curiously, as though those in attendance weren’t celebrating a foreign country’s independence day so much as their own.

Israelis don’t just feel an affinity for America – they deeply love it. And, in some respects, they’re more pro-America than Americans themselves.

A recent global survey by the Pew Research Center found that Israelis have a more positive view of the United States than does almost any other nation in the world. A staggering 87% of Israelis say they view America favorably; only Poles said so in slightly larger numbers. Citizens of close US allies like Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany lagged far behind.

But when it comes to America’s role in the world, Israelis view certain aspects of American global leadership more favorably not only than most other nations – but than Americans, too. 

As this paper’s Lahav Harkov reported at the time, roughly three out of every four Israelis (74%) believe the United States contributes to peace and stability around the world; only 69% of Americans believe the same; 94% of Israelis have a positive view of the American military, compared to 75% of Americans; 71% of Israelis believe the United States is a more democratic society than other wealthy countries, more than any other nation in the world; only 60% of Americans had a positive view of American democracy relative to other countries.

Americans love Israel and Israelis love the US

The love is very much mutual.

A 2021 poll conducted by Gallup found that three quarters of Americans (75%) had a favorable view of Israel – the highest figure in thirty years. A Pew survey from last year found that two-thirds of Americans (67%) have a positive view of the Israeli people. Surveys conducted by the American Jewish Committee (AJC) have found that more than eight-in-ten Americans view anti-Zionism – that is, denying Israel’s right to exist – as a form of antisemitism (full disclosure: I oversaw those surveys in my previous role as an AJC executive).

American elected officials support the US-Israel alliance not only because it’s good policy to do so – though, of course, it is – but because it’s good politics. America supports Israel because Americans do. 

As former Israeli ambassador to the United States Michael Oren writes in his seminal book, Power, Faith, and Fantasy, the notion of Jewish sovereignty in the Jewish people’s homeland has captured Americans’ imagination for as long as America has existed. The sheer number of American towns that trace the origins of their names to Israel, of communities and individuals who feel a deep emotional and religious attachment to the Jewish state and its people, is overwhelming, and it speaks to the remarkable role that Israel plays in the lives and consciousness of so many Americans.

When Americans look at Israel and when Israelis look at America, they see themselves: two democracies that came into being under trying circumstances and have persevered despite crushing odds; nations of innovators and entrepreneurs, of farmers and philosophers; societies rooted in deep and enduring values that seek to do right not only by their own people but by the world.

More than shared interests, even more than common values, America and Israel are bound to one another by the mutual love of their respective peoples, and it is that deep and abiding sense of attachment that will enable the two nations – and the bond between them – to weather any storm.


Avi Mayer

Source: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-750066

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

When is an insurrection not an insurrection? - Andrea Widburg

 

by Andrea Widburg

Things changed abruptly the other day when word emerged that Ray Epps had sued Fox News for its coverage accusing him of working with the FBI to incite and entrap people on January 6


Word emerged the other day that Ray Epps is finally about to be charged for events on January 6, 2021. Sharp-eyed media consumers instantly noticed that, with this news, the mainstream media moved in unison to redefine their previous characterization of events on that day.

Since the day Joe Biden took office, the administration has spent an inordinate amount of time, energy, and money to arrest and prosecute every random grandmother who took a picture inside the Capitol on January 6, ignoring the fact that Capitol police welcomed many into the building.

The administration has also savaged the constitutional rights of some of those arrested by locking them up without bail or trial for two-and-a-half years and it has been accused of major prosecutorial misconduct. Additionally, congressional Democrats staged a kangaroo court inquiry intended to destroy Donald Trump and whitewash any failures or complicity on the part of government actors.

Through it all, Ray Epps occupied an unusual position. Videos, especially the famous one below, showed him seemingly playing an active role (see, e.g., here and here):

 

Meanwhile, the FBI ignored Epps, and Democrats respected him. The House January 6 Committee liked him. The known facts were confusing.

Things changed abruptly the other day when word emerged that Ray Epps had sued Fox News for its coverage accusing him of working with the FBI to incite and entrap people on January 6:

Ray Epps, the man at the center of a widespread conspiracy theory about the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, filed a lawsuit on Wednesday accusing Fox News and its former host Tucker Carlson of defamation for promoting a “fantastical story” that Mr. Epps was an undercover government agent who instigated the violence at the Capitol as a way to disparage then-President Trump and his supporters.

[snip]

“Just as Fox had focused on voting machine companies when falsely claiming a rigged election, Fox knew it needed a scapegoat for January 6th,” the complaint says. “It settled on Ray Epps and began promoting the lie that Epps was a federal agent who incited the attack on the Capitol.”

In his lawsuit, Ray Epps denies that he ever worked for the government other than the time he spent in the Marine Corps. He says the theory about his working with the government has put him and his wife at risk and destroyed their finances.

The most interesting part of the complaint, though, is that Epps alleges that, because Fox focused on him so much, the DOJ finally plans to prosecute him:

Finally, in May 2023, the Department of Justice notified Epps that it would seek to charge him criminally for events on January 6, 2021—two-and-a-half years later. The relentless attacks by Fox and Mr. Carlson and the resulting political pressure likely resulted in the criminal charges.

The fact that Epps may finally be charged, despite his visible role on January 6 (as opposed to the enthusiastic arrests of those who had to be hunted down using bank records and cell phone towers), leads to several possible theories about what’s going on. Here are just three, although I’m sure you can imagine more:

1. Epps was working with the feds, but everyone had to deny that to maintain the narrative that the feds were not behind events on January 6. However, it was becoming impossible to maintain that denial given Epps’s continuing freedom. To lend an air of verisimilitude to an otherwise unconvincing narrative, Epps must be charged, too.

2. Epps is an ordinary citizen who, despite what was caught on tape on January 5 and 6, was fortunate enough to avoid arrest and to get special treatment from Congress. Now, though, his luck has finally run out.

3. Epps is an entirely innocent man who was neither a fed nor an “insurrectionist.”

What’s clear is that Epps’s pending indictment has thrown the media into a tizzy. As you recall, the day after January 6, 2021, every Democrat in America, both inside and outside of the media, insisted that what took place was an insurrection…that is, a revolutionary act intended to overthrow the American government. The fact that none of the people were armed, along with the fact that people got agitated only after the police, without warning, fired on them, has long been irrelevant.

By characterizing January 6 as an “insurrection,” the Biden administration could justify fencing off the Capitol and making Biden’s inauguration a private affair—something that provided a nice explanation for the lack of attendees. It could also launch the largest manhunt in American history, completely abandon constitutional rights, crack down on free speech, and commit other tyrannical acts.

But what’s the media to do when the person charged with wrongdoing on January 6 isn’t a crazy-eyed MAGA Republican but is, instead, someone you’ve steadfastly supported for two-and-a-half years? Well, in the case of Ray Epps, the media’s instantaneous response was to redefine events on January 6:


 

 

 

The American media are utterly and, I suspect, irredeemably corrupt. They have abandoned their constitutional function of holding the government to account—if it’s a government they support. When a Democrat is in power, media outlets are a unified leftist Borg plugged into a central narrative sold 100% of the time to maintain Democrat power and move the country permanently to the left. The saddest part is that, while ordinary Americans are fully aware that the press is ideologically and morally corrupt, they still allow its opinions to color theirs.

Image: YouTube screen grab.

 

Andrea Widburg

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/07/when_is_an_insurrection_not_an_insurrection.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Republicans look to slash $1 billion in FBI funding amid politicization concerns - Ben Whedon

 

by Ben Whedon

It would further require the FBI to conduct politically sensitive investigations under the oversight of a bipartisan group of Department of Justice staff while also forbidding the bureau from withholding the salaries of its whistleblowers.

 

Republicans on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies on Friday advanced legislation to reduce funding for the FBI by $1 billion.

The committee advanced the 9% budget cut in a party line vote, the Washington Examiner reported. The bureau's 2024 budget would fall from $11.3 billion in 2023 to $10.3 billion under the plan.

It would further require the FBI to conduct politically sensitive investigations under the oversight of a bipartisan group of Department of Justice staff while also forbidding the bureau from withholding the salaries of its whistleblowers.

The development follows a tumultuous hearing this week in which Republicans grilled FBI Director Christopher Wray over myriad scandals involving the bureau, including allegations of political bias and retaliation against the whistleblowers who have alleged it.


Ben Whedon is an editor and reporter for Just the News. Follow him on Twitter.

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/republicans-looks-slash-1-billion-fbi-funding-amid-politicization

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Against all odds, the Ukrainian counteroffensive is inching forward - Jonathan Spyer

 

by Jonathan Spyer

BEHIND THE LINES: “If the Western allies didn’t help, we’d already have a lack of munitions here; but for the breakthrough, we need more tanks, munitions, aviation," says a Ukrainian commander.

 

SECOND-LIEUTENANT Ilya, a tank commander in the 59th Motorized Brigade, takes a break on his tank, concealed in a forest in the Pokrovsk area of Donbas, on July 9.  (photo credit: JONATHAN SPYER)
SECOND-LIEUTENANT Ilya, a tank commander in the 59th Motorized Brigade, takes a break on his tank, concealed in a forest in the Pokrovsk area of Donbas, on July 9.
(photo credit: JONATHAN SPYER)

Kramatorsk, Ukraine – Entering Ukraine from the south, via Kishinev in Moldova, one is first struck by how normal things seem. Odesa, a few hours’ drive from the border, is as charming as it has always been. There are tourists from all over the country. Restaurants and hotels are open.

This apparent normality is partly deceptive. The recent destruction, almost certainly by the Russians, of the Kakhovka dam on June 6 led to the disgorging of vast amounts of wreckage from the Dnipro River onto Odesa’s coastline. Dead farm animals, debris from houses, and even mines are washed up close to the beaches, which have become unusable. 

Nevertheless, the near absence of the direct threat of the war in Odesa is significant and is a testament to the achievement of the Ukrainian armed forces in the course of the last year and a half of war. It is worth remembering that the intention of Vladimir Putin’s armies, at the outbreak of the war, was to obliterate the Ukrainian state. 

I visited Kyiv in early March 2022, when the Russian army was menacing the Ukrainian capital. Then, the sense of impending catastrophe was tangible and real. In addition to the effort to take Kyiv, cutting Ukraine off from its Black Sea coast was an essential part of this process. 

That March, amid shelling by Russian ships on the coast, and airstrikes, there were fears that Moscow would attempt an amphibious landing. The possibility that Russian forces sweeping west from Kherson would simply envelop the city, as they pushed on to the border with Romania, was also frighteningly real. 

A Ukrainian service member inspects a continuous track of a Russian tank destroyed during a counteroffensive operation of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Kharkiv region, Ukraine, September 14, 2022. (credit: PRESS SERVICE OF THE 30TH INDEPENDENT MECHANIZED BRIGADE OF THE UKRAINIAN ARMED FORCES/VIA REUTERS)A Ukrainian service member inspects a continuous track of a Russian tank destroyed during a counteroffensive operation of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Kharkiv region, Ukraine, September 14, 2022. (credit: PRESS SERVICE OF THE 30TH INDEPENDENT MECHANIZED BRIGADE OF THE UKRAINIAN ARMED FORCES/VIA REUTERS)

This danger has now passed. Russian forces faltered around Kyiv. Then, in August 2022, the Ukrainian counteroffensive in Kherson liberated thousands of square kilometers of territory and pushed the lines farther east, enabling the return of the cautious sense of normality now prevailing in Odesa. 

Reaching the war, as a result, now requires driving nine or 10 hours east of Odesa, across the endless wheat plains and the industrial landscapes of this most vast of European countries. Now, in the Donbas, the third strategic phase of the Ukraine war is underway. 

The first, in February-March 2022, was the failed Russian attempt to take Kyiv and the southern coast, and to terminate Ukrainian independence. The second, in the summer of 2022, was the large-scale Ukrainian counteroffensive in the east, in Kharkiv to the north and Kherson to the south. 

The third, which began on June 4 this year, is an attempt by the Ukrainians to further reduce Russian territorial holdings in eastern Ukraine, with the ultimate goal of driving Putin’s armies from all of Ukraine. 

In early July, I set off eastward from Odesa to the Donbas, with the intention of taking a close look at this third phase of the war. I spent time with infantry, armored and artillery units in the frontline areas, and with various support elements. I concentrated mainly on the Bakhmut front, where the Ukrainians are currently making slow and grinding progress, reversing Russia’s declaration of the full conquest of the town on May 20. 

Overall, as has been widely reported, the current counteroffensive has failed to make the rapid progress that Ukrainians and Western observers had hoped for. 

So far, there have been no large-scale breaches of the Russian lines by Ukrainian armor, followed by a rush to deepen and widen the gap. Instead, artillery duels are taking place along the 1,200 km. frontline, with small and incremental gains recorded by the Ukrainians. 

The sheer scale of destruction wrought by the war in the Donbas is breathtaking. Around the frontline areas, one sees whole towns and villages that have been depopulated, many reduced to rubble. 

While traveling through one such area close to Bakhmut, a village recently liberated from the Russians, we came across a Ukrainian aerial reconnaissance unit. Holed up in a half-destroyed house, the unit was operating drones over the Russian lines in order to provide accurate targeting for the M777 howitzers of the Ukrainian artillery in the area. At present, the war in the Donbas is a gunners’ war, to a great extent.

Despite the largely static nature of the fronts, this is a war that the Ukrainians at present appear to be winning. The latest figures suggest that Kyiv’s forces, using modern Western equipment and methods, have destroyed four times as many Russian howitzers as they have themselves lost.

Ukrainians contrast themselves with the Russians

The mood among the reconnaissance team was bullish, with the soldiers keen to point out the contrasting attitudes and practices of the Russians and their own side. 

Oleksandr, 40, the commander of the team, noted that “the Russians have been pushed back here, in recent days.” Part of his family is still trapped on the Russian side of the lines, so he didn’t want to be photographed. 

“The Russians work with quantity, not quality,” Oleksandr continued. “We’re in shock at their attitude to their own fighters. Because when we enter their trenches, we see that they are full of dead bodies. They don’t even try to take their own dead away.”

Dimitri, one of Oleksandr’s team, gestured toward a pile of discarded Russian uniforms and ammunition boxes that they have stashed against one of the walls of the courtyard. “In the basement of this house, there are microwaves and other stuff that they stole from people,” he said with disgust. 

And as for the counteroffensive and its prospects: “We’ll advance because we have no choice. It’s our land. The same as when Israel fought for their independence from the Arabs.” 

This combination of views – a kind of astonishment and disgust at the Russian way of war and what it reveals about the nature of the invading regime, and a grim consequent determination that the regime must not prevail – was echoed among other Ukrainian fighters whom we spoke to. 

Students of the school for drone pilots Dronarium Academy practice during a lesson, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in an undisclosed location, Ukraine, June 30, 2023.  (credit: REUTERS/Alina Smutko) Students of the school for drone pilots Dronarium Academy practice during a lesson, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in an undisclosed location, Ukraine, June 30, 2023. (credit: REUTERS/Alina Smutko)

At a training exercise of the 80th Airborne Brigade, a few kilometers from the Bakhmut frontlines, Oleg, a 42-year-old company sergeant major, noted that “Wagner doesn’t respect its own people. They’ll send a group forward. They’ll be killed. Half an hour later, another group will come forward in the same direction, over the bodies, and they’ll also be killed. But on the other hand, they’re a hard enemy. They don’t surrender, they fight to the end.”

He contrasted this “self-sacrificing” aspect of the Wagner PMC fighters with those of the Russian army, who he said were more likely to retreat. And regarding the counteroffensive more generally, he said, “Taking back 100 meters of our homeland is a big distance too, and means a lot for Ukraine.” 

Ilya, 25, from Chernivtsi, a tank platoon commander in the 59th Motorized Brigade, has been in the war from the start. The 59th was involved in the first, desperate battles around Kherson in February and March 2022. In his quiet and steady voice, speaking at a position of the brigade near the city of Pokrovsk, he described hair-raising engagements of tank-against-tank in the first days, sometimes at ranges of just a few meters.

As for the current matter, he said: “If the Western allies didn’t help, we’d already have a lack of munitions here; but for the breakthrough, we need more tanks, munitions, aviation. Our people are the priority, and we don’t want to just throw them away.

“For the breakthrough against the Russians, we’d need a 3-1 advantage against the enemy,” he continued, “but to fight inside Donetsk, inside the city, we’d need 7-1. So right now, we’re in the phase of protecting – step by step. But we are slowly moving forward – when the situation allows, with minimized losses, then we move forward.”

This is the current shape of things, five weeks into the Ukrainian counteroffensive of summer 2023. Ukraine’s continued sovereignty, thanks to the determination and early mobilization of a broad mass of the Ukrainian people, is no longer under direct threat. The matter now under consideration is the remaining Russian presence on a considerable stretch of the territory of eastern Ukraine. 

Despite the savage practices of the Russian army, its tenacity in defense is notable. Lacking air superiority or the overwhelming superiority in numbers that might allow for a breakthrough against the well-prepared Russian defenses, the Ukrainians are currently slowly and incrementally moving forward – but not, as yet, in a way to seriously threaten the Russian position. 

Barring a major shift in this picture in the remaining two months or so that are available before the autumn rains begin, the prospect appears to be for an ongoing, grinding, war of attrition in eastern Ukraine. 

For Ilya, Oleksandr, Oleg, and thousands like them – mobilized civilians crewing one of the most combat-hardened forces now in existence anywhere – it seems that it will still be a long fight ahead. 


Jonathan Spyer

Source: https://www.jpost.com/international/internationalrussia-ukraine-war/article-749991

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Dozens from Lebanon crossed border into Israel in Mount Dov - Gadi Zaig, Yonah Jeremy Bob

 

by Gadi Zaig, Yonah Jeremy Bob

Among the Lebanese citizens that crossed into Israel were journalists and a member of parliament, reports say. They retreated after the IDF fired a distant warning shot.

 

Smoke rises in Kfarshouba, as seen from the village of Khiam, near the border with Israel, in southern Lebanon, July 6, 2023.  (photo credit: AZIZ TAHER/REUTERS)
Smoke rises in Kfarshouba, as seen from the village of Khiam, near the border with Israel, in southern Lebanon, July 6, 2023.
(photo credit: AZIZ TAHER/REUTERS)

IDF soldiers used warning shots and crowd dispersal measures to distance at least twenty Lebanese citizens who crossed around 80 meters into Israeli territory in the isolated Mount Dov enclave on Saturday morning.

One of the people who crossed into Israeli territory was a Lebanese member of parliament as well as some journalists, Lebanese media reports said.

It was unclear if the IDF soldiers started clearing the Lebanese infiltrators after they started throwing rocks at the IDF soldiers or if the military confronted them simply on the basis of the border violation.

Earlier, the Lebanese refused to evacuate the area upon verbal warnings, which eventually led the IDF to use crowd dispersal means.  

A military official defined the incident as a "Lebanese provocation."

Hezbollah flags on the border between Israel and Lebanon, northern Israel, July 03, 2022. (credit: AYAL MARGOLIN/FLASH90)Hezbollah flags on the border between Israel and Lebanon, northern Israel, July 03, 2022. (credit: AYAL MARGOLIN/FLASH90)

Group that entered Israel said it was a "tour"

Lebanese media claimed that the IDF fired smoke grenades and tear gas at the group in what they described as a tour of the border area, and reported that those present on the tour inhaled smoke.

Lebanese media also reported that the group did not cross the border, but the IDF stated that they did.

Hezbollah has repeatedly ignored the UN set Blue Line which is supposed to delineate the border between the countries following Israel’s UN-recognized withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000.

This past Wednesday, there were two separate attempts to damage the border fence between Israel and Lebanon, from the Lebanese side, with the more serious of the two, involving explosives, confirmed as coming from Hezbollah.

The IDF prevented both.

Unlike the Har Dov "no-man's land" area, the area where the fence was being attacked on Wednesday is clearly delineated by the UN-approved blue line as being within Israeli territory.

The two incidents came on the 17th anniversary of the Second Lebanon War and right before Hezbollah Chief Hassan Nasrallah gave a high-profile speech.

Other incidents of border breaching

In the more serious Wednesday incident, around four Hezbollah suspects approached the northern security fence and attempted to sabotage it with explosives. 

They set off the explosives, which also reportedly injured some of them, but failed to break through the fence.

The IDF soldiers immediately spotted the suspects and used non-lethal means to get them away from the fence.

Reports also indicated Saturday that in recent days there was another Lebanese move against the border in which some unidentified Lebanese ripped off and ran off with IDF surveillance equipment in the border areas.

All of this comes against the background of Hezbollah, around two months ago, setting up a small outpost of under 10 fighters a small number of meters into Israeli territory in the Mount Dov enclave.

The IDF has demanded, via the UN, that Hezbollah withdraw the outpost and Nasrallah has refused and said that if the IDF uses force that the terror group will respond with more force.

The Jerusalem Post has learned that though there is a split within the IDF about how long to wait to use force to remove the outpost, that for the coming weeks and possibly months, the camp favoring giving diplomacy more time is holding sway.


Gadi Zaig, Yonah Jeremy Bob

Source: https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-750158

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

How Jews Fared in 19th Century ‘Palestine’ - Hugh Fitzgerald

 

by Hugh Fitzgerald

Before Zionism and Balfour.

 


In recent years, Palestinian and other Arab propagandists have claimed that before the Zionists appeared, supposedly intent on taking over by force land “belonging to the Arabs,” the local Arabs in “Palestine” (a toponym not used by the Arabs until the late 20th century, for until 1948 they thought of the area as part of “southern Syria”) had gotten along quite well with the Jews who had been living in the area long before the arrival of the first Zionist pioneers from Europe.

In this version of history, it was only when Jews, having become Zionists, suddenly became land-grabbers, “stealing Arab land,” that the Arabs, quite justifiably, turned on them in self-defense.

This claim is as false as the one that so many peoples in the West accept about Islamic Spain being a splendid example of interfaith tolerance and cultural syncretism. Elder of Ziyon several months ago compiled news reports from the period before the Balfour Declaration, even before the first stirrings of Zionism, to show what had been the real relations of Muslims to Jews in “Palestine.” More on the evidence showing the treatment that Jews had to endure at the hands of Muslims in “Palestine” in the period “before Balfour and before Herzl” can be found here: “A short catalogue of Arab intolerance of Jews in Palestine before both Zionism and the Balfour Declaration,” Elder of Ziyon, April 10, 2023:

There is no doubt that there were some friendships between some Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem and throughout the Arab world, but to use them as evidence of widespread acceptance of Jews as equals or near-equals is not only flawed reasoning but utterly false.

The evidence that Jews were treated horribly is irrefutable.

Here are just some examples from my own articles posted here over the years.

W. B. Lewis, 1824:

The Jews at Jerusalem, (I speak even of European Jews) are liable to be stopped by the lowest of the country, who, if he pleases, may demand money of them as a right due to the mussulman ; and this extortion may be practised on the same poor Jew over and over again in the space of ten minutes.

The Jews are fond of frequenting the tombs of their forefathers, especially on particular days, to read their prayers of remembrance of the dead. Here advantage is taken of them again. They are rudely accosted and pilfered, and if resistance is made, they are beat almost to death, and this not by common highwaymen or Bedouin Arabs, but by men they may have been in the habit of seeing and talking with every day.

The book “Stirring Times: Or, Records from Jerusalem Consular Chronicles of 1853 to 1856” by James Finn, British consul to Jerusalem, describes the financial extortion Muslims practiced on Jews:

In times gone by these native Jews had their full share of suffering from the general tyrannical conduct of the Moslems, and, having no resources for maintenance in the Holy Land, they were sustained, though barely, by contributions from synagogues all over the world. This mode of supply being understood by the Moslems, they were subjected to exactions and plunder on its account from generation to generation (individuals among them, however, holding occasionally lucrative offices for a tune). This oppression proved one of the causes which have entailed on the community a frightful incubus of debt, the payment of interest on which is a heavy charge upon the income derived from abroad.

…Notwithstanding these glimpses of honorary distinction the Jews are humiliated by the payment, through the Chief Rabbi, of pensions to Moslem local exactors, for instance the sum of 300£. a year to the Effendi whose house adjoins the ‘ wailing place,’ or fragment of the western wall of the Temple enclosure, for permission to pray there; 100£. a year to the villagers of Siloam for not disturbing the graves on the slope of the Mount of Olives ; 50£ a year to the Ta’amra Arabs for not injuring the Sepulcher of Rachel near Bethlehem, and about 10£ a year to Sheikh Abu Gosh for not molesting their people [the Jews] on the high road to Jaffa…

From Remarks on the present condition and future prospects of the Jews in Palestine, by Arthur George Harper Hollingsworth, 1852:

This Jewish population is poor beyond any adequate word ; it is degraded in its social and political condition, to a state of misery, so great, that it possesses no rights. It can shew no wealth even if possessed of it, because to display riches would secure robbery from the Mahometan population, the Turkish officials, or the Bedouin Arab. … He creeps along that soil, where his forefathers proudly strode in the fulness of a wonderful prosperity, as an alien, an outcast, a creature less than a dog, and below the oppressed Christian beggar in his own ancestral plains and cities. No harvest ripens for his hand, for he cannot tell whether he will be permitted to gather it. Land occupied by a Jew is exposed to robbery and waste. A most peevish jealousy exists against the landed prosperity, or commercial wealth, or trading advancement of the Jew. Hindrances exist to the settlement of a British Christian in that country, but a thousand petty obstructions are created to prevent the establishment of a Jew on waste land, or to the purchase and rental of land by a Jew. “

…What security exists, that a Jewish emigrant settling in Palestine, could receive a fair remuneration for his capital and labour? None whatever. He might toil, but his harvests would be reaped by others; the Arab robber can rush in and carry off his flocks and herds. If he appeals for redress to the nearest Pasha, the taint of his Jewish blood fills the air, and darkens the brows of his oppressors ; if he turns to his neighbour Christian, he encounters prejudice and spite ; if he claims a Turkish guard, he is insolently repulsed and scorned.

,,,Now, how is this poor, despised, and powerless child of Abraham to obtain redress, or make his voice heard at the Sublime Porte? The more numerous the cases of oppression, (and they are many), the more clamorous their appeals for justice, the more unwillingly will the government of the Sultan,—partly from inherent and increasing weakness, partly from disinclination,—act on the side of the Jew. They despise them as an execrated race ; they hate them as the literal descendants of the original possessors of the country. …

From “Sir Moses Montefiore’s Report to the Board of Deputies of British Jews,” 1867:

On Saturday, April 14th [1866], after the morning service, I took a walk round the garden, and was much pleased with the improvement of the place since my last visit to Jerusalem.

I regret, however, not being able to report the same of the land at Jaffa, which has been unfortunately let to persons who, being unable to resist the threatened attacks of the neighboring Arabs, deserted the place altogether. The consequence is, that the houses are completely demolished and the trees destroyed….

Many more [Arab attacks on Jews] listed here, including in 1911: September 23: Arabs assault about sixty worshippers at religious service on Rosh Hashanah at Wailing Wall.
Widespread persecution of Jews by Palestinian Arabs – both Muslim and Christian – is undeniable. A few counterexamples cannot counter the overwhelming evidence of antisemitism and abuse. And saying otherwise is not scholarship – it is cherry picking propaganda points.

There it is, the written testimony of those Christians who traveled to the Middle East and saw for themselves the overwhelming evidence of the terrible mistreatment of Jews by Muslims in “Palestine.” It was not the Balfour Declaration nor the modern Zionism of Herzl that caused these Arabs to treat their Jewish neighbors so wretchedly. The Muslim hatred of Jews has always been prompted by many passages in the Qur’an and stories in the hadith: these are the fons et origo of the cruel, greedy, and sometimes murderous antisemitism of the Muslims that these Christian visitors to Palestine witnessed, and recorded for history.


Hugh Fitzgerald

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-jews-fared-in-19th-century-palestine/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Even kosher bakers have a right to free speech - Jonathan S. Tobin

 

by Jonathan S. Tobin

A New Jersey bakery is being boycotted by Jewish groups for refusing to make products honoring gay pride. Is there room in the community for those who dissent on this issue?

 

Rainbow cakes. Credit: Greatwork studio/Shutterstock.

Up until now, the legal battles being waged about tolerating dissent against support for gay marriage or gay pride events have been focused on conservative Christians. But a kosher baker in West Orange, N.J., is highlighting the fact that the question of the right to refuse to produce services for causes, ideas or beliefs can not only involve Jews but also create difficult dilemmas for Jewish communities.

While all those concerned understand that the baker has the law on his side, synagogues and even the local Jewish Federation seem prepared to ostracize him for his choice. By placing the bakery under a modern version of the traditional herem—a ban essentially separating an individual from the Jewish community—the Jewish Federation of Greater MetroWest NJ was making an important statement about its concept of what is and what isn’t consistent with the values of the Jewish community.

Such a decision was, no doubt, popular with the majority of that community, which is likely not Orthodox and views opposition to gay pride events as not merely mistaken but beyond the boundaries of normative behavior in contemporary American and Jewish society.

But can any federation that draws such a line, which designates a significant percentage of Orthodox Jews as being beyond the pale, do so without violating its prime mission to bring Jews together? If it is prepared to take such a stand, can it, in good conscience, be said to represent the interests of the entire Jewish community?

Yitzy Mittel, the owner of the West Orange Bake Shop, is the focus of the controversy. According to the New Jersey Jewish News, Mittel canceled orders from Congregation B’nai Israel, a Conservative synagogue located in Millburn, N.J. The synagogue wanted a rainbow-decorated cake and cookies to celebrate Gay Pride month. Additionally, they wanted rainbow cupcakes for a youth group.

The baker had made a pride cake for the same synagogue a year earlier but then had come to think that he had violated his own beliefs by doing so. The synagogue wound up getting their treats from another kosher bakery. But that wasn’t the end of it.

B’nai Israel’s Rabbi Robert Tobin reportedly sermonized about the incident, saying “I believe that humans are created in the image of God with a variety of potential gender identities with the possibility of gender fluidity.” He then defended “Pride” as a “reasonable overcorrection to the past history of discrimination against the LGBTQ+ communities by our religious and social authorities.”

He conceded that this disagreement didn’t mean that the bakery should lose its kosher certification and did say that the law was clear that Mittel had a right to do as he liked. But it was equally true that the synagogue also had a right to refuse to spend their money supporting businesses that don’t agree with them on such issues.

They were joined in this sentiment by other non-Orthodox synagogues in the area. The more important decision came from the MetroWest Jewish Federation, which covers an area of New Jersey that includes Essex, Morris, Sussex and Union counties, as well as parts of Somerset.

In an email, MetroWest executive vice president and CEO Dov Ben-Shimon circulated a memo to his staff that the organization will not be purchasing goods from Mittel’s bakery in the future.

Once the news of his decision was made public, Ben-Shimon heard criticism from those who thought it wrong for a federation that claimed to represent the entire Jewish community to be ostracizing a kosher baker who, after all, felt he was only following traditional interpretations of Jewish law. Ben-Shimon wanted no further part in the controversy, claiming that his initial decision was made in haste and was no longer official policy. While he called for dialogue, he also left it unclear whether the organization would, in fact, follow the lead of the synagogues in boycotting Mittlel’s business or if it would purchase items from it in the future.

Supreme Court decisions in cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado and, most recently, 303 Creative v. Elenis, have established that efforts by states like Colorado to effectively make it criminal for vendors to refuse to produce creative material for causes or beliefs that they personally oppose are unconstitutional. In doing so, the court has reaffirmed the basic principle that the right to religious freedom cannot be abrogated because certain beliefs fall out of fashion, as is the case with those who oppose the rapid acceptance of gay rights in the last decade.

Equally important, the 303 Creative decision made clear the distinction between denying ordinary services to people on the basis of their identity and being compelled to do work that specifically requires someone to use their talents to celebrate something they oppose. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission attempted to put Jack Phillip’s Masterpiece Bakeshop out of business for refusing to bake a cake for a gay marriage ceremony.

Like Phillips, who said he was happy to sell baked goods to any customer but didn’t think he ought to be forced to design a gay marriage cake, 303 Creative owner Lorie Smith similarly refused to design such a website while insisting that she didn’t turn away customers who ask for ordinary services. Mittel was doing the same thing.

One can argue that they’d be better off not turning away customers, but the point about religious liberty is that it is rooted in an understanding that the state must not make religious tests or declare some faiths, especially those rooted in the biblical values that helped create the United States, as beyond the protection of the law for all intents of purposes.

The court’s decisions in these cases have been bitterly criticized by liberal Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League, and those representing Reform and Conservative Judaism. Like others on the left, they believe that upholding the rights of people like Phillips, Smith and Mittel is permitting discrimination that ought to be illegal. Yet the courts have rightly dismissed that argument, saying that this would mean compelling people to violate their religious beliefs and denying them the right to free speech.

After all, if a conservative Christian baker could be compelled to bake a gay wedding cake, on what grounds could, say, a Jewish baker, refuse to bake one that had Christian imagery or, perhaps, even Nazi symbols like a swastika? If the law reasons that gay marriage is a good thing that cannot be reasonably opposed while a Nazi cake is bad, then what is being proposed is not a legal principle but a decree that distinguishes between approved and illegal beliefs. And as much as most Americans now approve of marriage equality for gays and rightly regard Nazism with disgust and anger, the law cannot make such distinctions. As the court correctly noted in 303 Creative, the law cannot compel speech.

That’s a distinction difficult for many people to understand. Still, liberals who wish to ban opposition to gay marriage must realize that doing so would be to establish a system in which some creeds are permitted and others are not. The Constitution specifically opposes such a scheme, which would amount to a state religion in all but name.

Jewish groups in New Jersey have a different problem.

Support for gay rights has quickly become not merely popular in the Jewish community but is now regarded as a tenet of liberal Judaism. Some in the Orthodox world are open to more engagement with gay men and women, but much of that community is still opposed in principle to normalizing the issue—something that puts them very much at odds with the rest of society.

Yet it is ironic that liberal Jewish institutions that are committed to a “big tent” with regard to a variety of beliefs, including some that are critical of or opposed to the State of Israel, are utterly intolerant of Orthodox Jews and businesses that won’t go along with gay pride celebrations. If some organizations, like the ADL, seem primarily interested in pursuing a left-wing political agenda rather than defending the Jewish community on a host of issues, it would appear that this is now accompanied by an appetite for treating dissent on an issue like gay rights as grounds for expulsion from the community.

It is true that a community solely defined by a devotion to inclusion is one that stands for nothing. But does the fact that many Orthodox Jews are out of step with contemporary culture on some issues put them in the same category as, for example, groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, which don’t merely oppose Israel’s existence but traffic in antisemitism? How can a federation pretend to speak for all Jews by treating the Orthodox as now morally equivalent to those actively engaged in trying to harm Jews?

The answer is that it cannot. While we are all free to choose to purchase goods from businesses that are aligned with our personal values, when groups that pretend to uphold Jewish unity start placing kosher bakeries in herem—in much the same manner as an Amsterdam synagogue did to the great skeptic Baruch Spinoza in 1655—then the Jews have much bigger problems than where to purchase cupcakes.


Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS (Jewish News Syndicate). He is also a senior contributor to The Federalist and a columnist for Newsweek, as well as a writer for other publications. Follow him on Twitter at @jonathans_tobin.

Source: https://www.jns.org/jns/topic/23/7/14/302641/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Thursday, July 13, 2023

From J6 informants to FISA abuses, FBI boss had few answers to Congress’ most pressing questions - Nicholas Ballasy

 

by Nicholas Ballasy

Wray responded to a lawmaker's question about data surveillance, saying, "Respectfully, this is a topic that gets very involved to explain."

 

FBI Director Christopher Wray declined to answer direct questions from lawmakers on several hot-button issues at a House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing.

The performance on Wednesday generated frustration on both sides of the political aisle, and a rebuke from FBI alumni.

“Chris Wray is tone deaf. He had an opportunity today to really start righting the ship,  to start bringing the 50, 60 maybe 80 million Americans who don't trust the FBI,” retired Supervisory Special Agent Jeff Danik told Just the News. “And he really fumbled the ball.

“He did a disservice to the people that he shoves out in front of him every single day saying they are heroes, which they are, the frontline people,” he added.

Here are some of the issues that Wray did not address fully, and the fireworks that ensued.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz asked Wray about the FBI's alleged misuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act database under Section 702, which allows the government to spy electronically on foreign people outside the U.S., and about how many times that occurred under his watch.

Wray declined to confirm a specific number or explain why the illegal searches happened.

Special counsel John Durham's final report on the origins of the FBI probe into alleged collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia also found the agency abused the FISA process on numerous occasions.

"Again, I don't have the numbers as I sit here right now," Wray said after being repeatedly asked. 

Gaetz shot back, saying, "It seems like a number you should know, how many times the FBI is breaking the law under your watch."

Wray told the committee that some individuals have been disciplined for misusing the database, but he declined to elaborate.

He acknowledged that there have been "failures" related to FISA but said the agency has implemented reforms that have led to "significant improvement" in terms of compliance. 

FBI purchasing data from private companies

Democratic Rep. Primila Jayapal asked Wray if the FBI is purchasing Americans' personal data from private businesses such as Internet providers or social media companies.

She cited a report from the director of national intelligence's office that stated the FBI purchases commercially available data. Wray would not confirm or deny that the agency is purchasing such data. He also wouldn't say how the FBI uses any personal data it is able to obtain. 

"Respectfully, this is a topic that gets very involved to explain, so what I would prefer to do is have our subject matters come back up and brief you," he said. 

When pressed on the matter, Wray said he is unaware of the FBI purchasing data that provides geolocation information from Internet advertising. Jayapal said the reauthorization process for FISA this year will be a “very difficult” process unless Congress has a better understanding of how Americans’ civil liberties are being protected.

Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, chimed in, saying the issue she raised is of bipartisan concern.

Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot

California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa asked Wray whether one or more FBI agents had entered the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and Wray would not answer directly.

He instead referred Issa to existing court filings. Other lawmakers asked similar questions about FBI agents in the crowd or in the U.S. Capitol during the riot, but Wray said his office would make the relevant court filings available to the committee.

Such questions are being asked amid speculation the agents infiltrated some of the groups that staged the riot and even encouraged them to riot so that they would get arrested. 

FBI memo related to Catholics

Jordan pressed Wray on the Richmond FBI field office memo about "radical traditional Catholics" and the far-right.

Wray said the memo is subject to an "internal review" and he "ordered it removed from the FBI systems," statements that had already been widely reported after news stories earlier this year about the memo.

He also said the memo didn't result in any specific investigative action.

Jordan asked whether the committee will be able to obtain a redacted copy of the memo and speak to the FBI employees who wrote it. However, Wray declined to answer the question. Instead, he said the FBI would brief the committee on the findings of the internal investigation. 

"That product is not something I will defend or excuse," he said.

Attorney Jonathan Turley called out Wray for declining to answer so many questions.

"Wray is continuing to refuse to answer questions for lack of knowledge," he tweeted. "It raises the question of willful blindness as when he denied that there were any FISA searches linked to Jan. 6th in prior testimony. Today he just shrugged and said that when he gave that apparently false representation he did not know what his agency was doing on FISA in that regard. Now that a court has revealed it, he says that he is now aware of it."

Bank of America 

Jordan asked Wray whether the FBI asked financial institutions to turn over their customers' debit and credit card purchase histories in the Washington D.C. area for January 5 and 6 of 2021, in a suspected attempt to track this who committed crimes in the Jan. 6 riot.

"I don't know the answer," he said.

Jordan presented an email Bank of America turned over, showing correspondence between the FBI and the financial institution about obtaining customers' credit card activity.

"I'm not going to start engaging on specific correspondence. I don't have the whole string here," he said. "My understanding [is] that our engagement with Bank of America was lawful."

 
Nicholas Ballasy

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/congress/all-questions-fbi-director-didnt-answer-during-marathon-house-hearing

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter